Attorney Joel Brodsky, left, gets a pat on the back from ex-cop Drew Peterson at a court appearance in 2008, before Peterson was convicted and their relationship soured. (John Smierciak, Tribune photo)

Drew Peterson continued efforts to overturn his murder conviction Thursday as his lawyers filed a biting post-trial document that accuses his former lead attorney of botching the case and threatening to reveal harmful information about the retired Bolingbrook police officer.

Peterson, 58, was convicted in September of the 2004 drowning of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. He remains the only suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, who vanished in October 2007.

A post-trial memorandum filed in Will County placed responsibility for the conviction squarely on the shoulders of Joel Brodsky, Peterson's former lead attorney and colorful confidant.

"Attorney Brodsky expected that Drew Peterson would be his ticket to the legal elite," the document states. "Regrettably, he was poorly equipped to try a case of this magnitude, resulting in hornbook errors and a smorgasbord of ethical violations. Individually and cumulatively Brodsky singlehandedly deprived Drew of his right to effective assistance of and conflict-free counsel."

Brodsky did not respond to questions about the allegations in the memorandum. A hearing on the issue is scheduled for Jan. 10.

The document suggests Brodsky "misrepresented his qualifications" to Peterson by insisting he had successfully handled other homicide cases. In reality, Brodsky had never tried a murder case before Peterson hired him — a fact reporters pointed out long before Peterson's trial.

The memorandum also alleges that Brodsky repeatedly threatened to reveal potentially damaging information about Peterson if he were removed or had his role diminished in any way. The document does not state what details Brodsky — who withdrew from the case in October — purportedly vowed to expose, but it suggests he made the threat as recently as last month.

"This is of course the last thing you or I would want, but this could happen as an unintended consequence of unfounded ineffective assistance accusation, which is not fully thought through," the memorandum quotes Brodsky saying in a Nov. 24 letter to Peterson.

The document alleges that Brodsky had a financial interest in drawing as much publicity as possible to Peterson's case. Brodsky's desire to earn appearance fees prompted him to parade Peterson around the country and have him participate in "carnival-like" pranks such as a much-maligned "Win a Date with Drew" contest, the court filing alleges. He also was paid for Peterson's participation in an ill-received book and courted constant media attention that harmed his client's reputation, according to the memorandum.

"In the process, Brodsky accumulated large bills for hotel stays, meals, and spa treatments for he and his wife, all paid for by the respective media outlets," the memorandum states.

To win an ineffective counsel claim, Peterson must show Brodsky's representation fell below acceptable standards and the outcome might have been different because of it. It will be an uphill battle, however, given that he had five other attorneys on the trial team, and that courts rarely overturn convictions based on legal strategies.